The Trap Of Sacred Beliefs

That is NOT the experience of 'the absence of existential boundary,' it is experience 'impacted' by the seeing through/absence inherent to realization, which is always prior to/beyond all experiential content.

I think you actually used to make fun of folks way back on ST at one point when they insisted that an absence was experienced as 'a presence'? The idea that you can directly experience an absence is a nonsense. Whatever "IT" is that you are experiencing, has obviously been conjured by mind as mind conceptualizes the pointer of "absence of existential boundary."

It really can only be pointed to. There is no appearing, experiential equivalent that can be said to BE "the absence of existential boundary."

You're clearly mixing context as well when you suggest that there could be a 'literal' experience of absence of existential boundary...as opposed to what? A merely 'figurate' absence? You make it sound as though the absence of existential boundary (absence of fundamental separation!) HAS both a literal as well as merely figurative meaning.

Again, the absence of fundamental separation does not equal an experience of a lump of connected/unified stuff...things/objects. You are describing the "Oneness blob," that again, used to frequently arise as a derisive term on ST for those who dared to suggest that Oneness was referencing the conceptual unification/connection between objects/things.

Absence of separation is not a reference to an absence of relative, appearing, experiential multiples, relative objects/things that are perceived as unique and discrete, it's a reference to the underlying reality by which they are essentially One.

In this sharing Tenka, you reveal that you have zero reference for what is meant by the term "SVP."

The "attributes" of an SVP are; an erroneous sense of being a separately existent something/entity, an erroneous sense of having personal volition, an ability to create/cause via personally volitional actions/doings. If the "attributes" of "being an SVP" are present, then clearly, an erroneous imagining of fundamental separation, is also present. That's what the term "SVP" is referencing.

What is "illusive" is "a fundamental, separate existence." You continually invoke and argue against terms that you have zero understanding of....zero direct reference for.




You have a false narrative running about "how" an enlightened person "should/would" behave and that's because you are imagining what it is to BE "awake/enlightened," and then judging the apparent behaviors of others, accordingly.



I really don't think you have any semblance of reference for what Niz or ramana are actually pointing to, thus, I suspect you've cherry-picked some of their quotes that "seem to" support your view.



Straw-man alert. No one has denied "the appearance of" individuals....uniqueness. It's YOU who continues to deny that those facets of experience ARE "appearance only" devoid of inherent existence.




again, you have misconstrued the terms used in pointing to Oneness/Truth, and then you argue from that position of mangled understandings.

To say "It's all akin to a dream" is not to denigrate of dismiss experience at all. In fact, in the realization of the inherent absence of fundamental existence of apparent objects/things/circumstance/happenings, the 'love' becomes so expansive so as to even include the judgments that you are just now denoting to be "not" worthy of love....something "other than" love.




You are the emperor, standing before the entire forum, butt-naked, all his junk hanging out for all to see, angrily arguing that those who tell him he is in fact naked, without clothes, are the delusional ones, while you are not only the best dressed one in the room, but you are the designer and the tailor of the stunning outfit you are so proudly donning....that if only the deluded ones would stop with their nonsense, you could outfit them in similar, stunning outfits.

Your arrogance as you stand in a position of ignorance is something to behold.

What it all comes down to, is, for you, does awareness arise within/to the person or does the person arise within awareness? That's really the shift in seeing that SR boils down to. Once Awareness, as abiding, unchanging ground, that can stand alone on it's own, absent any perceivable/appearance at all, is apprehended, and becomes the primordial place from which all seeing happens, it simultaneously becomes clear and obvious that the person never was the ground to awareness, or to any-thing else for that matter....that no appearance can be ground source/creator/catalyst for anything else.

The body/mind, complete with character/personality, thoughts, feelings, all of it, "an appearance" that arises, empty of it's own inherent existence (awareness), completely and fully "dependent upon" the abiding ground of consciousness for it's temporal appearance.

For seekers who are intent upon holding onto their erroneous, delusional views, it IS a nice place indeed. At present, 3 members who are all still fast asleep are blanketing (littering...? ) ST with their views and instead of the strong, decisive thwacks of the zen stick that are begging to be meted out, instead we have polite, restrained challenges that go half way and then creep back before a reprimand can be dished out. It's like everyone walks on eggshells over there now.

A great litmus test for whether or not you're ripe for Nonduality is to take an honest gander at how up you are to have your viewpoints ripped apart. Not at all interested? Then you'd do best to find a good New Age, LOA, mysticism or philosophy forum.

Here's one for inquiry; Why do folks who have zero reference for Nondual awareness, who scoff at sharings about SR, who take issue with the very idea of direct, firm challenge of their views, gravitate to Nonduality forums...and in many cases, remain there for years?